2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught.

I am engaging your points. You are suggesting we teach YEC in schools, I'm asking if you also want to include Souix creationism?

I think elements, arguments within any creationist theory, that has scientific merit should be taught, and imo, there are some valid scientific arguments within various forms of creationism.If there are some similar points made in any model, I think they should be presented as well.Let's talk about YECism though I am not a YECer. One testable claim would be we should probably find bones of legitimate giants accompanied with human tools of giant proportions.Well, we do in fact find such fossilized bones. Evos claim they are very ancient, and YECers claim they are not, but what's interesting is how they were predicted by YECism, and thought they should have been predicted by evos as well, it seems from my reading they were not.I think the YEC arguments on viewing "sedimentary layers" from Mount St Helens are interesting.Of course, there are the arguments for a very old earth, but YECers do have other dating methods to disagree with those.We can't really get into all these details here at the Coffee House, but educating kids about the controversy, imo, would be a good thing. If evolution is so much more substantiated, evos should be welcome the comparisons.The fact they do not is telling.

Actually there are plenty of other fields in science accussed and guilty, imo, of suppression of truth. The following is one example.I visited the Smithsonian a couple of summers ago and was eager to show my kids one of the American history museums, not realizing it had changed so much since my youth. It basically sucks now.Well, we visited the energy section and there were several life-sized standing photos of Edison all around. There was even one besides the large exhibit of Niagra Falls power plant. The suggestions was that the Niagra Falls power plant was developed by Edison. They did acknowledge that Edison had a disagreement with "another inventor" and refused to mention his name over which power system was correct. No where in that exhibit did they mention Nicola Tesla's name despite he being the one, not Edison, that designed the Niagra Falls power plant, and Tesla's AC/DC system of electricity is the one we use for the power grid, not Edison's.They did have a small picture of Tesla on the exibit for the induction motor, which Tesla invented, but when they got to radio, they incorrectly claimed Marconi invented radio even though Tesla was the one that patented radio.I cannot but think that an educated outfit like the Smithsonian deliberately is engaging in propaganda in continuing to this day the deliberate smearing of Tesla and denial of his legacy.In Tesla's lifetime, the US Supreme court refused to hear Tesla's patent case for radio until after he died in 1944, and then posthumously admitted Tesla, not Marconi, invented radio. One can only wonder what would have happened if Tesla had the resources that belonged to him, considering we still today rely on his 1st generation technology he developed before the turn of the century, and some of his technology which he demonstrated, seems to be lost or hidden, even today.So here we have a case of historical authorities continuing, imo, to engage in a conspiracy of disinformation in a science-related field.Many feel this is part of deliberate suppression of energy technology in certain sectors. Maybe one day, we will see the scientific community that went along with this as discredited in the eyes of the public as evolutionism is in terms of being considered the sole viably scientific explanation on the origin of life on earth.

But clearly you understand that Creationism is not science.Their hypothesis is that God created everything as is, and anything which contradicts that was also created by God to throw us off the track.Neither you nor I were alive during the time of the Egyptians. We have no first hand knowledge that they existed.If I were to suggest that "ancient Egypt" is nothing more than a clever hoax by late period Romans, I could point to all sorts of "evidence". For example, most of the Pharoh's tombs contain no mummies, no wealth. Clearly, the Roman's either ran out of time or budget while creating their elaborate hoax.The problem is, I wouldn't be offering evidence FOR the Roman's pulling this prank, only attacking evidence against it.Is there any evidence (other than what's written in the Bible) FOR Creationism? If so, what is it, who's presenting it and is it up for peer review?How does the evidence for Creationism stack up against the evidence against Creationism?Let's assume you are correct in your belief, paradigmatic shift will accomidate you. Anomolies will build up and science will take notice. Science has ALWAYS taken notice. Sometimes faster, sometimes slower. The same can not be said for religion.If you believe that those anomolies are already starting to pile up, fantastic. Keep them coming.But, one or two highly suspect studies, does not theory make.If you are advocating a complete review of all materials, all the evidence for and against each theory, you need to understand that it would take something like 6-10 years of nothing but biology class to go through the Pro-Evolution material.Until the creationists have even half as much, they shouldn't be asking for equal timeThis message has been edited by Nuggin, 09-01-2005 02:23 AM

Imo, you don't understand and are misrepresenting creationism and creationist scientists. Someone here said something like no credible scientists are creationists, but that's just ignorance talking. There are university professors in biological sciences that are creationists.Take the time to learn what they are saying, and then you can slam them.What you are doing now is arguing with a straw man. Maybe and maybe not, but maybe this is a time when science is beginning to change a little on this. Anthony Flew certainly felt so.But having faith that science will always be right or some such is fallacious on it's own. For one, that time of catching up can take a long time. Around the turn of the century (1900 not 2000), Tesla claimed to have discovered and used over-the-horizon radar, except he referred to it as waves and not radar. He was laughed at, scoffed at, ridiculed and mainstream science disparaged his name and reputation mercilessly, as they still do today although that has changed a little in the past 20-30 years. Mainstream science said it was impossible, against the laws of physics.Well, we rediscovered over-the-horizon radar in the 50s, but mainstream science still did not give Tesla too much credit, and still to this day deny many of his other claims, and in general, even organizations like the Smithsonian do not properly credit Tesla with many things he invented such as radio, the power grid, etc,....Telsa demonstrated wireless transmission of power in a way not well-understood, but perhaps via the vacuum. He claimed to have discovered non-Hertzian waves before 1900, and demonstrated that to Lord Kelvin who agreed. It's not exactly clear what Tesla did, but he seems to have tapped into vacuum energy or manipulation and propagation of energy in a manner not well-understood at all. At one point, in experimenting, he caused shallow earthquakes, and seems to have been able to create resonating waves which could draw out energy that resonated at those frequencies so that the very energy in the fabric of the universe and the earth could be tapped directly.

Tesla's reputation is still pretty sound as far as I know. Some of his inventions and ideas may not be respected, but then the same could be said of Newton or indeed Darwin. How do you go from generating sympathetic resonances in the earth to "the very energy in the fabric of the universe and the earth could be tapped directly", or indeed draw any inferences that he was making use of 'vacuum energy'.Tesla was certainly a very remarkable man but you seem to be totally uncritically accepting any claim about any of his ideas, or at least expecting us to? Wireless transmission of power over short distances by induction is well understood, what are you suggesting Tesla's alternative long distance method was and why are you positing any role in it for the 'vacuum'?.TTFN,WK

I've always thought it was pretty simple, in essence: ID/creationism wants to introduce non-naturalistic explanations. That's where it stops being science, right there. It's like a destruction of science from within (that is, if they were indeed, as claimed, "scientific"). Just imagine where science would be if the absence of total, 100% complete knowledge would have been reason 300 years ago to just introduce "design" as final explanation. It's ridiculous. Incompleteness of knowledge should not be used to throw the towel, but as an incentive to keep digging further, for NATURALISTIC explanations. The domain of science.If this view is wrong, please argue why it is. It sounds simplistic, even to a layman like me, but I actually think it IS as simple as this.

Hi Yaro, We did? That's the truth? Since this is the coffee house, am I allowed to require you to provide evidence for such a claim?--JasonThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-01-2005 07:18 AM

Well. This could be a very loaded question depending how you take it.Frome a philosophical/existential perspective the question of WHAT is truth is one of those ultimate unsolvables. So let's not go there I define truth as what I can deduce/induce from data, present in my environment, and gathered thrugh one of my five senses. Note, this does not require direct observation since two primary processes of logic (deduction and induction) are present in the deffinition.Anyhow, on to your question:Yes, we did come from a common ancestor. We can say this with a great degree of certainty. The same genetic tests that can link a killer to a crime, or prove that someone is your long lost daughter, can also link us to those animals in the animal kingdom we are more closely related too. As it so happens, we are more closely related to the great apes.Now, this is all well and good all by it'self, untill you take into account the fact that DNA evidence only began to be widely used about 15-20 years ago. Long before 15-20 years ago, comperative anatomy, fossil evidence, radiometric dating, etc. led us to the SAME conclusion! The implacations are outstanding! DNA corroborates traditional biological sciences used to determine liniage, thereby bolstering it all the more.These are some key points that have personaly been very persuasive to me, however this site it'self is a testament to the VOLUMES of data on the subject. And there is much MUCH more to modern biology than what I have posted. This is why people go to school to get Phd's in this stuff.

I'm glad your brought this up.1 - Can you name ONE (1) practicing ID/CREATION scientist. That is involved in actually performing SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS/STUDIES related to his field.2 - This scientist must be qualiefied in a life science. Such as: Biology, Zoology, or Genetics.3 - Bet you this person, if he does exist, has a degree from Patriot university

Oh. I have a different definition, I guess, at least when I am discussing science. Truth equals "undeniable fact." Now, I don't mean that all that isn't undeniable fact isn't science, but then I don't equate science and truth, and I don't think that is an incorrect view of science. I understood DNA tests to have determined that we share many similarities and differences with the great apes...not that we and they evolved from a common ancestor. I know that comparative anatomy proves that many organisms share similarities and differences in anatomy. But does it demonstrate that everything evolved from a common ancestor?Fossils, like living creatures, do prove that organisms can share many similarities and differences. Fossils also prove that many creatures have died, been preserved, and gone extinct, but do they prove that everthing evolved from a common ancestor?Radiometric dating proves that various objects have various isotopic ratios...I'm not sure if this has anything to do with whether we all evolved from a common ancestor or not. Even though I'm a YEC, for argument's sake, I'll grant the 3 billion year time frame and that the layers-equal-epochs idea...even granting that; I fail to see how science has proved that all organisms evolved from a common ancestor.If you consider evolution to be a deduction, we could agree, because that is what I think it is. But since you consider deductions to be truth, I must disagree with you.--JasonAbE: if "deduction" should be "induction"...forgive me...I have always mixed up the two terms...and understood them clearly ever only momentarily when examining a dictionary.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-01-2005 07:42 AM

quote:

---

Oh. I have a different definition, I guess, at least when I am discussing science. Truth equals "undeniable fact." Now, I don't mean that all that isn't undeniable fact isn't science, but then I don't equate science and truth, and I don't think that is an incorrect view of science.

---

Wait.. before we go too far down this road let me just check something with you know that in science that Fact=Observation rather than "This is true*".* yes yes I know but let's keep it simple.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Sep-2005 07:53 AM

Okay. I think I'm missing something of your point. You are disagreeing with me, but I am not sure how.--JasonThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-01-2005 07:50 AM

Wait, I think I get it...Like in a geometrical proof. We might use axioms (or facts, in science proofs) to reach a true conclusion.Is that what you're saying?--Jason

No I'm not disagreeing but I'm slightly unsure from your post of your stance so was asking to clarify your position and to ensure that we are talking about the same things using the same terminology.it seems strange to ask but many creationists use their own versions of every scientific term in existance ("I don't see why I should use YOUR terms") and it can get very confusing.